politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
He says, after the Dems just had a presidential candidate that did not even run in the primaries.
No, a new party is 100% the way to go, though it shouldn't be hostile to the dems, e.g. not running for president until they have more congressman and senators then the Dems to avoid splitting the vote.
I would straight up call it "the New Democratic Party" or similar. I wouldn't even necessarily try to make a massive shift towards the progressive direction. Instead, design it so that it would be very easy for existing Democratic politicians to jump ship to the new party. Make it an equally large tent, and just serve as a one-to-one replacement of the existing party. Once the Old Democratic Party is dead and buried, then debates can be had about what direction to move the party politically. Instead, the main change would be structural reforms, reforms that would serve to allow the party to move in new ideological directions in the future.
I would make the New Democratic Party like the old one, except with a few key structural reforms that will prevent the dysfunction of the Old Democratic Party. Some possible reforms I can think of:
No politician may run under the New Democratic Party banner while accepting corporate campaign dollars.
Every nominee must have a full and competitive primary every single cycle, regardless of incumbency.
Any party leader that holds a leadership role during a losing election will be ineligible to serve in party leadership for the next ten years. (True electoral accountability among leadership.)
No system of committee appointments or positions within the party may be assigned based on seniority. Every position from top to bottom must be competitive. This is the DEMOCRATIC party. We don't do inherited royalty here.
Various reforms to greatly diminish the power of political consultants.
A vice president is ineligible to be the party's presidential nominee for at least 8 years after the end of their VP term. (Kill off the "it's their turn" idea once and for all.)
In other words, in software terms, this would be a hard fork of the Democratic Party. It wouldn't be an entirely new party that has to build a completely new base and tradition from scratch. It would simply be a new version of the existing party built with a few crucial reforms that will prevent the kind of sicknesses that currently plague the existing Old Democratic Party. The actual formal legal structure of the party would be entirely new, but it would be designed so that any existing Democratic politician could easily jump ship to the new version as long as they're willing to agree with these few crucial structural reforms. It would essentially be stealing the party right out from under the existing DNC.
What happens if a given seat doesn't actually have primary competitors? Do we just assign someone by lottery?
I mean sure, if no one actually wants to run, that's fine. What needs to end is the immolation of anyone's career that dares to run against an incumbent. Primarying an incumbent is career suicide in the Democratic party. You better hope you win, because if you don't pull off a miracle, you will be thrown out of the party. Running against incumbents and putting them through their laces should be encouraged. We want a party that is a political survivor of the fittest.
Money. You need the DNC money. It's easier than more fundraising. Like activating voters instead of switching them. Make your life easier.
The importance of money is greatly exaggerated. I think it's clear by now that there is such a thing as saturation when it comes to political ad spending. By the time you've already spent $500 million to bombard the eyeballs in everyone in the country, what good does the next $500 million really do? Democrats managed to outspend Republicans in both 2024 and 2016. Dems collect way more money than they need and then waste most of it.
Don't disagree. But splitting the party AND having the uphill battle of raising against both sides... Ross Perot didn't do it the Bernie way....
Ahhh, never mind. I had a strange idea that clinging to the carcass of the democratic party failed. No idea where I got that from. Looking forward to all the improvements the next 4 years will bring the US, since DNC money made life easier.
🤷 yeah.. been thinking through solutions for 30 yrs now.. hmu when u got this
I kinda solved it at birth by not being born in the US, but I wish you good luck.